Vote for or against Limbo Poll

[Proletarian]

I disagree. We have no idea of what extraordinary graces that God may grant aborted infants before death.

JD

They are not baptised by water.

They are not baptised by blood, as they did not choose to die for the faith.

They are not baptised by desire by their own initiative, nor by the initiative of their parents that wanted them dead, not baptised.

Are there any other options for their salvation?

 

[Johndigger]

They are not baptised by desire by their own initiative, nor by the initiative of their parents that wanted them dead, not baptised.

We never do any good action by our own initiative. God is always the first mover by prompting us to make an action by His grace, it is then up to us whether we co-operate with that grace.

Babies have rational souls, too, they have the capacity for free will and decision-making should grace supply it.

And let’s face it, the Blessed Virgin Mary is going to be pulling out all the stops on this one and Jesus NEVER says no to His Mother.

As for other means of salvation, I just don’t know.

If aborted babies are in hell, then we must praise the Lord for His infinite and glorious justice.

JD

 

[AaronsStaff]

They are not baptised by water.

They are not baptised by blood, as they did not choose to die for the faith.

They are not baptised by desire by their own initiative, nor by the initiative of their parents that wanted them dead, not baptised.

Are there any other options for their salvation?

God understands the situation. God chooses to use the sacraments, but God is by no means limited by them, he can grant his mercy to whom ever he chooses, and certainly those who were unable to act and in danger of death like infants and un-born children. And just for the record, Image of God asked how he can defend Catholic teaching on this issue, well I say that you dont need to defend it because limbo is not nor ever was part of Catholic teaching, it was just speculation and an idea floating around in the theological arena.

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

Remember the Feast of the Holy Innocents? The Church has always remembered the infants slaughtered by Herod as something akin to martyrs. They had no say in the matter, but they are still honored and remembered.

Yes, the Church teaches that the normal means of salvation is by baptism and membership in the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly gave us that path, and we who know the path are required to follow it.

However, Dominus Iesus clearly refutes the assumption that anyone not baptised or not Catholic is therefore damned to Hell. We do not know, it said, how God deals with those who were never evangelized, were raised in a rabidly anti-Catholic home, or died before they could be baptised. We hope on God’s mercy.

Limbo for unbaptised children is not a 2,000 year old idea. “The Limbo of the Fathers” tried to explain what happened to the Saints of the OT before Jesus’ Resurrection and the subsequent opening of Heaven. Limbo for babies was more of a Middle Ages idea. Parents understood that baptism was necessary for salvation, but couldn’t accept the idea that their child that died suddenly at two days old was going to hell. If God was really merciful and just, where were the mercy or justice for this child? Limbo for babies tried to reconcile the two ideas: the baby wouldn’t go to Heaven, but would be perfectly naturally happy, as Adam and Eve were before the Fall.

But if only Heaven is the fulfillment we seek, then even Limbo would be something of a punishment, wouldn’t it?

 

[Johndigger]

Yes, the Church teaches that the normal means of salvation is by baptism and membership in the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly gave us that path, and we who know the path are required to follow it.

However, Dominus Iesus clearly refutes the assumption that anyone not baptised or not Catholic is therefore damned to Hell.

Could you show me where in Dominus Iesus our Holy Father contradicts these two things?

1. Baptism is neccessary for salvation
2. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

I thought that both of these statements were infallible have been held pretty much since the beginning of the Church.

However, we must interpret them as the Church interprets them not as we understand them.

JD

 

[adam_in_ohio]

When I was growing up, my dad taught me “limbo” was a possibilty of where those bound for Heaven went befor Christ died.

 

[Image_of_God]

God understands the situation. God chooses to use the sacraments, but God is by no means limited by them, he can grant his mercy to whom ever he chooses, and certainly those who were unable to act and in danger of death like infants and un-born children. And just for the record, Image of God asked how he can defend Catholic teaching on this issue, well I say that you dont need to defend it because limbo is not nor ever was part of Catholic teaching, it was just speculation and an idea floating around in the theological arena.

I suppose you and John Digger are right. Limbo is only an idea. So that means their is still hope for unbaptized babies.

 

[Proletarian]

People on this thread stress the fact that Limbo was only developed as a theological concept during the middle ages, therefore invalidating it. So what about the concept that the unbaptised can attain salvation? Why is a concept that was developed only recently more valid than one that was developed in the middle ages? Its not!

The church has NEVER taught that the unbaptised can attain salvation. It seems that the liberals would prefer that the Church abandon the necessity of baptism all together, however failing that they resort to verbal and theological gymnastics in an attempt to imagine circumstances in which God grants baptism (of some nondescript form) to the unbaptised.

Perhaps there is no Limbo. But if there isn’t there is only one alternative that does not conflict with the Living Tradition of the Church…Hell.

 

[Image_of_God]

People on this thread stress the fact that Limbo was only developed as a theological concept during the middle ages, therefore invalidating it. So what about the concept that the unbaptised can attain salvation? Why is a concept that was developed only recently more valid than one that was developed in the middle ages? Its not!

The church has NEVER taught that the unbaptised can attain salvation. It seems that the liberals would prefer that the Church abandon the necessity of baptism all together, however failing that they resort to verbal and theological gymnastics in an attempt to imagine circumstances in which God grants baptism (of some nondescript form) to the unbaptised.

Perhaps there is no Limbo. But if there isn’t there is only one alternative that does not conflict with the Living Tradition of the Church…Hell.

I am not a liberal, at least I don’t believe myself to be one. It was Pope Benedict XVI who said that there might be hope for “unbaptized” infants and he is the one who said that limbo is only a speculation, and he is the one of the most conservative popes I know.

After all, who said that the unbaptized were unbaptized? The Church has never dogmatically claimed what happens to an unbaptized infant, at least I don’t think. Anyhow God is not bound to the Sacrament of Baptism. It is an act of weakening him to say that he is, but that does not mean baptism is not necessary. Of course I believe it is! But, who said that there is no other baptism besides those of desire, blood and water?

 

[Image_of_God]

I hope you don’t hate me Pro. I am not a liberal and I am certain that Benedict isn’t one either.

 

[Proletarian]

But, who said that there is no other baptism besides those of desire, blood and water?

2000 years of consistent Church teaching says so. To justify the salvation of unbaptised infants one would have to invent a new form of baptism. Inventing a new form of baptism 2000 after the fact is far more radical than believing in Limbo.

 

[Johndigger]

I am not a liberal, at least I don’t believe myself to be one. It was Pope Benedict XVI who said that there might be hope for “unbaptized” infants and he is the one who said that limbo is only a speculation, and he is the one of the most conservative popes I know.

Well, Our Holy Father’s comments needed to be subject to the interpretation of Sacred tradition rather than our own private interpretation.

Here, the Pope is talking about unbaptised babies - as in not having a normative water baptism.

Despite Bastion being a sedevacantist he posts a good quote.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”

The Pope is echoing the Church’s teaching that a Water Baptism is not strictly neccessary for salvation and that we don’t know what happens to people that haven’t had it - as they may have a baptism of desire or blood.

JD

 

[Proletarian]

I hope you don’t hate me Pro. I am not a liberal and I am certain that Benedict isn’t one either.

Don’t worry, I don’t hate anyone; I’m simply expressing my position as you are.

The Pope has also expressed a personal opinion, one that is not protected by the infallibility given to the Church by Christ.

 

[Image_of_God]

2000 years of consistent Church teaching says so. To justify the salvation of unbaptised infants one would have to invent a new form of baptism. Inventing a new form of baptism 2000 after the fact is far more radical than believing in Limbo.

But even baptism of desire and blood were at a time “invented.” Doctrinal development is constantly occuring because the Church is the living Bride of Christ. If the contempararies of St. Thomas Aquinas spoke as you speak, then all of his theological searches for truth would have no meaning and limbo should have never came up. We are to all be like Aquinas, looking and hoping for the truth.

 

[Image_of_God]

Don’t worry, I don’t hate anyone; I’m simply expressing my position as you are.

The Pope has also expressed a personal opinion, one that is not protected by the infallibility given to the Church by Christ.

I understand. But, Benedict is certainly not a liberal simply because he believes that there may be other forms of baptism for unbaptized babies. He and I believe as surely as you do, that baptism is necessary for salvation and that no one (besides Mary and Jesus) are born without original sin. But, God is not bound to anything, not even his own Church’s sacraments.

 

[Proletarian]

But even baptism of desire and blood were at a time “invented.” Doctrinal development is constantly occuring because the Church is the living Bride of Christ. If the contempararies of St. Thomas Aquinas spoke as you speak, then all of his theological searches for truth would have no meaning and limbo should have never came up. We are to all be like Aquinas, looking and hoping for the truth.

Fair enough, I’lll give you that one.

 

[bastion]

Despite Bastion being a sedevacantist he posts a good quote.

That quote is missing the last line, it has “-condemned” after it… So it doesn’t support your position.

*ps I thought you weren’t allowed to label or stereotype people like that? Unless they ‘avowed’ it?

 

[Johndigger]

That quote is missing the last line, it has “-condemned” after it… So it doesn’t support your position.

*ps I thought you weren’t allowed to label or stereotype people like that? Unless they ‘avowed’ it?

Apologies. First of all for misreading your post and secondly for calling you a sedevacantist. Forgive me?

However, there are still any number of quotes I could draw from to support the position that a water baptism isn’t strictly neccessary for salvation.
Catechism 1281:

Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved** even if they have not been baptized**

JD

 

[Joero]

I would just like to know the view of people

I still believe that there is a certain state of spiritual life for the souls of infants who died without baptism. The word “limbo”, though was used by the early theologians to describe that state of spiritual life for the souls of those unbaptized infants who died, becomes the latest controversial issue. I voted “yes” for this poll not for the name itself “limbo” but for that particular state of spiritual life. If the church would like to change the name, so be it.

 

[Proletarian]

I still believe that there is a certain state of spiritual life for the souls of infants who died without baptism. The word “limbo”, though was used by the early theologians to describe that state of spiritual life for the souls of those unbaptized infants who died, becomes the latest controversial issue. I voted “yes” for this poll not for the name itself “limbo” but for that particular state of spiritual life. If the church would like to change the name, so be it.

Perhaps a “spiritual realm” similar to that of Orthodox theology?